quick cpu temp question

thanks guys for the responses. Well in New England it's been in the 80s and 90s for a couple days but will cool off a lot soon. Is there any temp range I should be worried about? I assume over 80s is not so good.

Maintaining over 67~c is a bad idea.---Want that Shield!Ball and Cup on ps mobile has framerate issues. -stargazer64

#12NicodimusPosted 9/11/2013 7:05:18 AM

My personal comfort zone is below 70C. They may survive higher than that, but you are also shortening the lifespan by running very hot, so you need to keep that in mind.---My movie and gaming room: http://imgur.com/a/IjWr1My pets: http://imgur.com/a/P9VGU

#13dmccappinPosted 9/11/2013 7:26:31 AM

Life span shortening is irrelevant and doesn't even need to be brought up.

I've been running my CPU overclocked for coming up 5 years, over intels recommended temps.

So forget high temps and electromigration shortening the life span. I'm upgrading the CPU at the end of this year because I'm changing to a new platform.

I've never had a problem with crashing or stability in the years I've had it. I think I made the PC July 2008 so might even be over 5 years now.

So when people say don't run temps to high or overclocking will cause the CPU to die early. Ignore them because your going to upgrade the machine way before any of that happens.

#14NicodimusPosted 9/11/2013 7:49:53 AM

dmccappin posted...

Life span shortening is irrelevant and doesn't even need to be brought up.

I've been running my CPU overclocked for coming up 5 years, over intels recommended temps.

So forget high temps and electromigration shortening the life span. I'm upgrading the CPU at the end of this year because I'm changing to a new platform.

I've never had a problem with crashing or stability in the years I've had it. I think I made the PC July 2008 so might even be over 5 years now.

So when people say don't run temps to high or overclocking will cause the CPU to die early. Ignore them because your going to upgrade the machine way before any of that happens.

You certainly are cavalier about it, considering that you're completely relying on anecdotal evidence. If you could show me a study where they tested, say, 10,000 CPUs under controlled conditions at a specific higher-than-recommended temp and showed no problems, I'd be more convinced. There is nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety, either.---My movie and gaming room: http://imgur.com/a/IjWr1My pets: http://imgur.com/a/P9VGU

#15dmccappinPosted 9/11/2013 8:19:15 AM

I never said it wouldn't shorten the life span, but not to the extent were it would fail in its usage (before an upgrade).

Also if you are not aware of a “10,000 CPU’s controlled” test how can you forewarn someone of CPUs lifespan if you have no data either?

At least I’ve had some personal experience of it. You would have a lot more people crying on forums that their CPU had failed after a certain point.

#16NicodimusPosted 9/11/2013 8:32:10 AM

dmccappin posted...

Also if you are not aware of a “10,000 CPU’s controlled” test how can you forewarn someone of CPUs lifespan if you have no data either?

My "data" is what the people who made the CPU recommend. There is certainly R&D testing with the development of any new CPU, whether it's made public or not. I don't know who is more qualified to tell us the safe operating parameters of something than the engineers who designed it.---My movie and gaming room: http://imgur.com/a/IjWr1My pets: http://imgur.com/a/P9VGU

#17JairPosted 9/11/2013 8:52:19 AM

I imagine the engineers also err on the side of safety to an extent.

#18greenyoshi46Posted 9/11/2013 9:13:48 AM(edited)

I have a 3570k with stock cooler and in games it maxes out at 42-45C at 4.6 GHz---(English is not my first language, Swedish is. So respect typos)